Kona Qualifying- What it takes.. (Page 2)

Alright, gonna throw out a hypothetical, but might lend itself to people better understanding the whole IM effort and it's correspondance to training.

It is obvious that if you do not have a good ride that you cannot come off fresh enough to sustain a decent run.  So the question then is ...... should a person with WC aspirations focus tons more on the bike with just minimal run maintenance, or should there be just as strong of a run focus as there is on the bike?

For me, going into next year with the goal of getting a slot at IMLP, and knowing that the bike is a challenging one I know I will have a shot with a 1:15 swim (realistic for me), 5:30 bike (more than realistic for me) and a 3:30 run (shold be doable with a med-effort ride).  But people don't realize whata 3:30 marathon is really like that haven't done it.  For Florida for me to have even a remote shot with a 1:15 swim I'll need a 5:00 or better ride with a 3:30 or better marathon.  Once again, assuming no mechanicals I'll have a shot at the 5 or better without totally cooking myself.  But just how much should someone in my shoes focus on their running?

I'm a potential sub 3 stand-alone marathoner when I run focus, and 3:15 stand-alone is not all that challenging on a simple course, so the run endurance is there.  But should I be carrying the same level of marathon training as I would for a stand-alone??  Or put the focus more on the bike.

(See ..... there is where a coach could be a benefit , but I just wanted to see where your thoughts lie in your training that got you there).

bryancd - 2007-08-12 9:14 PM My last VO2 test was a a 74.8, for what's it worth.

I think I could have coached you to a Kona slot. 

What's interesting is that I come from a cycling background ...... after coming from a running background ..... and then focused a lot on running again.  So as Jorge says, I've got thousands of cycling miles in my legs (former Cat. 3 back in the day) and tons of experience, but not a lot of volume in the last few years.  But my running has been very high in volume.  What I have found is that my running actually supplements my cycling better than the other way around .......

I am a very efficient cyclist because of all the years road racing.  I wish I had a power meter to show that, but as an example, my 2:24 at Eagleman was only in the low 160's for my HR average with winds ....... on a flat course it is super easy for me to maintain low to mid 20's mph average if I apply myself (without getting cooked) for long periods.  My bike LT is in the 170's (as well as my run LT).

The swim volume I'm working on.  I'll be over 30k yards this month, which is my most ever and I've averaged over 20k each month this year, which is a huge improvement over last year (first year in the water).

I'm really using FL as a gauge of what effort it is really going to take out of me to perform at the level I will need to later.  I'm not specifically going out for a WC slot there, but if by some superb chance I come off the bike in the 6:15 range (for overall time) I'll have an outside shot of getting one.  At that point all bets are off and I'm going for it on the run.  Otherwise this one will be for the experience and the "event."

I think that is one of the more insightful and appropriate paragraphs (for me) that I've read in a long time.  I'm in a somewhat similar situation where I played organized sports since a younger age, and grew up in a military family as well as being in the military.  I've had just about enough of people "telling" me what to do over the years and like the flexibility to adapt adn change things.

Just this weekend I came to the realization that if I really want to have a quality long run session that I absolutely cannot back to back it with my long ride/brick the day before.  My long runs were taking a big hit from having a solid bike the day before.  So I'm tweaking my schedule to shift my main runs around - long run on Tuesdays starting next week and my usual general aerobic that I'd do on Th. will now be on Sun.

It's about knowing your limits and your abilities and adapting as the physiological stress builds.  I knew that what I was doing was starting to be less than effective, so I'll be trying something slightly different and seeing if my recovery and sessions are better.

Excellent!  I would like to nominate this as best post in the thread.

RM and I could argue with JK & Co. all day why having a coach 'might' enhance someone’s training or not but the reality is that there are many ways to approach tri training and help someone to improve. I am sure someone like Bryan would have qualified to Kona without coaching but it would have taken him more attempts, that is for sure. And I could take an athlete and work very hard with him/her and maybe never get to the big dance as we already discussed it takes a bit more than just hard work and determination.

My coach and I discussed at some point how some athletes are good in spite of their training/coaching and how some are good because of it. We all have heard some of the training done by some of the best self coached endurance athletes and sometimes we can help to scratch our heads and ask how the hell did they managed to be so good with such crazy approaches. On the other end there are many stories about great athletes who become greater after working with a good coach. For the great majority of regular AGers with families, jobs and a not so developed endurance engine, I will say yes, having I coach will improve your chances and shorten the time it will take you to improve. And yes many factors will determine what’s the right mix for each person and based on that each can get to pick their poison (which is weather to work with a coach or not)

It is funny how some perceive coaching and of course this perception will be greatly impacted based on past experiences. That’s why I believe it is VERY important to find a person who not only knows his sh*t (for real) and have plenty of experience, but someone who matches your personality.  As the smart a$$ and sarcastic person I am I could never work with a “we are all winners” mentality type of coach. And I have found that some athletes for which tri training is nothing more than just a hobby and aren’t into it as some of us psychos, have trouble working with me (I learned that pretty early in my short coaching career ) but again there are many options out there for everyone. Online plans, books, coaching, etc.

A few weeks ago I listened to a Macca’s podcast and he touched on training and how he basically knows exactly “what it takes” to be the best. But still he have come short of wining the big one (IM wise) and how he changed his approach and how is been working with other coaches that will enhance or provide that insight/experience that he might be missing. I am perfectly capable of structuring a plan for me as no ones knows my limits better than me, however I choose to have a coach cuz I know his insight, experience and perspective will only enhance my training.

As JK said; he could have coached Bryan for KQ and you know what I don’t doubt it for one second, because B is a genetic freak, plus he is determined, disciplined, etc. But just for kicks, I would also say that there is no doubt in my mind that I could have trained JK for a better IMLP. I know that’s a big statement cuz he had a killer race in particular for his 1^st IM and at LP,  but with specific work sessions catered for his specific needs I’ll dare to say he would have gone sub 11… (JK, let me emphisis that I am not taking anything away from your race at all, actually the opposite I think it was plain awesome what you accomplished and the day you had with great execution).

Does anyone else find this as funny as I do...or am I the only one with a twisted sense of humor? I wondered if his mommy used to yell at the Little League coach when little Johnny went 0 fer in the big game.

I don't disagree for a second Jorge.  I also never meant to imply that having a coach (again, a good one) wouldn't improve most any athlete's chance at having their best race and shorten the time it takes them to reach a given level of performance.  I believe it would.  For this discussion, I was only disagreeing that it was a "necessity" for anyone who wants to qualify for Kona.  You do need good genes (not great ones, though that helps to cover up any other shortcomings).  You do need consistent well-thought out training and smart racing.  A coach can certainly help with this part of it, but a dedicated athlete can also learn much of this on their own (or through listening to other smart people).

And, FWIW, I have no aversion at all to being coached and might someday go that route.  For now, my goals (balanced both inside & out of triathlon) have led me to take my current path.  My near-term goals aren't far enough out of my reach that I can't get their on my own and my longer-term goals aren't pressing enough that I'm overly concerned about minimizing the time it takes to get there.  Add that to the financial committment of a coach and I just can't justify it today (this is not arguing a coach is not worth the money--a good one most certainly is.  It's that I have other places where that money drives greater personal value today).  In a few years, maybe part of the equation will change (or I'll find a good coach that takes on free-loaders  ).

I thought I was the first. 

For YOU, perhaps.  But you noted that for anyone to go to the "big show", coaching was essential.  I think you can see that for some it is not.

bryancd - 2007-08-13 1:55 PM You nominated it, i started the voting. Yes, I did mean that coaching was essential for me, in my mind. As far as making a general statement, you are correct, certainly athletes qualify without. It would be curious to see what the precentages are. Of the people I know who qualified this year, either locally or on other chat boards, 100% of them had coaches, but that's not a very big sample. In regards to what you mentioned about VO2, again, I don't know about anyone else but me and my coach, who quualified at IMLP for the third time this year and has a VO2 in the mid 70's. I would be ineterested to see how that plays out as well across the qualifying spectrum.

I know of at least 3 people who have qualified without coaching (1 turned down a roll-down spot this year).  And another 3 who used some level of coaching.  Also not a very big sample size.

I'd be curious about the VO2max stuff too, but running a sub-3:00 marathon is typically equated with a low-mid 50's VO2max.  A sub-3:00 marathoner has the goods to qualify for Kona in my opinion.  FWIW, you're VO2 correlates with something like 2:15 open marathon capability.  You've got a long way to go to reach your potential and you've already qualified. 

I would bet 65+, for men.

Comes up with post of the thread and has modesty to boot!  I bet he looks good in a speedo and pink bow tie as well.